Legal Aid

Lord Davies of Coity: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to ensure that the legal aid system provides good value for money.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am today announcing a package of measures, which will help achieve better value for money in the legal aid system while ensuring that help continues to go to those who need it most.
	A consultation paper has been published today on the Criminal Defence Service (CDS), Delivering Value for Money in the Criminal Defence Service, which sets out a range of proposals to ensure that CDS expenditure is targeted on those areas where legal aid can best advance and protect a client's interests. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	A further consultation paper, Proposed Changes to Publicly Funded Immigration and Asylum Work, has also been published today. This sets out proposals to ensure that we obtain more effective controls of costs and quality in legal advice given to asylum seekers. Copies of this consultation paper have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	I can also announce that we are setting up a project to consider the likely supply of and demand for lawyers over the coming years and to establish what remuneration rates may be necessary. This will provide an evidential basis for decisions to ensure a sufficient supply of lawyers of the right quality prepared to undertake legal aid work in the coming years.
	Finally we are fully implementing the scheme for contracting very high cost criminal cases. These are cases which last (or are estimated to last) over 25 days at trial, or cost more than £150,000. This scheme will ensure better value for money, help the aims of better and earlier case preparation and give the professions greater certainty about payment for work.

Northern Ireland Office: QWAs in House of Lords

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is a target timescale for the answering of written parliamentary Questions in the House of Lords by the Northern Ireland Office; if so, what it is; how many have exceeded the target since 1 January 2002; and why.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Northern Ireland Office aims to answer Questions for Written Answer within the 14-day timescale—as set out in the House of Lords Companion to the Standing Orders. However, in order to provide a full and accurate reply, it is sometimes necessary to await the outcome of consultation and discussion, resulting in delays.
	Since 1 January 2002, 484 Northern Ireland Questions for Written Answer have exceeded the 14-day deadline. However, I hope that the noble Lord will understand that the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly and transfer of powers to Westminster has added a considerable burden of work to the Northern Ireland Office.
	I would like to assure the noble Lord that the Northern Ireland Office, as with all other government departments, endeavours to answer all parliamentary Questions accurately and promptly.

Ulster-Scots Agency

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the approved minutes of the Ulster-Scots Agency, part of the Language Implementation Body, are received by the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure; and, if so, for what purpose are they used.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has been receiving copies of the minutes of the Board meetings of the Ulster-Scots Agency since August 2001. The minutes are used to inform the department about the activities of the agency.

Waterways Ireland

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Privy Seal of 25 March (WA 72) and 30 April (WA 101) concerning set-up costs for Waterways Ireland, why the figures provided differ; and which figure is correct.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Answer given on 30 April 2003 (WA 101) provided exact set-up cost details for Waterways Ireland. This figure (£195,000) differed from the response given on 25 March 2003 (WA 72) (£200,000) as the figure in that Answer had been rounded up.
	The figures contained in the Answers in relation to the North/South Language Body also differ as some staff costs were mistakenly included in the Answer given on 25 March 2003 (WA 72).

Disclosure Process: Responses to Consultation on Reform

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the responses to the consultation paper on the reform of the disclosure process.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On 27 February the Home Office issued a consultation paper on the reform of the disclosure process to seek the views of registered bodies and others on how best to take forward a number of the recommendations of the independent review team (Official Report, column 33-36WS). The consultation period closed on 25 April; 570 responses were received. We have today placed in the Library of the House an analysis of those responses. We will consider carefully the views expressed in response to the consultation before deciding how best to proceed.

Scientific Procedures on Animals: Statistics

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the annual statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Each year, to comply with a requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Government present to Parliament statistics relating to scientific procedures using animals in Great Britain. The statistics, based on data collected from those conducting licensed programmes of work under the Act, are published as a Command Paper and placed in the Library.
	For some while suggestions have been made, from different quarters and in various contexts, as to how the statistics might be improved, both as regards the information provided and the way it is presented. More recently the statistics have been the subject of recommendations by the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, in its report published last July.
	In the government response to that Select Committee, we stated we would have the statistics reviewed to see how their content and presentation might be improved. This is to inform the House that Bob Ainsworth has today written to the chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee—the independent advisory body set up under the 1986 Act—asking for that committee to carry out a thorough review.
	The review is to take into account all the views and recommendations already put forward on the statistics, and to involve widespread consultation with stakeholders, other interested parties and the wider public. The expected cost of any recommended changes, especially in terms of any additional burden on the scientific community would have to be fully justified by the likely benefits.
	Bob Ainsworth has asked the Animal Procedures Committee to report back to me by the end of 2004. Its recommendations will then be carefully considered.

Criminal Records Bureau: Corporate Plan 2003–04

Lord Evans of Parkside: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the Criminal Records Bureau's Corporate Plan for 2003–04.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the Criminal Records Bureau's corporate and business plan for 2003–04. After a difficult first seven months of operations, the business plan builds on the steady improvements in performance since last autumn. The average number of disclosures issued each week since October stands at 40,000 compared with 24,500 a week last August. Turnaround times have reduced from over eight weeks to under five and the number of aged applications over six weeks old (and not awaiting further information from the applicant) has been reduced from a peak of 76,000 to under 10,000.
	For 2003–04, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has set the CRB challenging but realistic service standards which take into account the experience of the first year of operating. The CRB will now seek to process 90 per cent of applications for a standard disclosure within two weeks and 90 per cent of applications for an enhanced disclosure within four weeks.
	As a result of the service improvements in recent months, the CRB is able to increase its capacity to 60,000 disclosures a week and consequently it can now commence criminal record checks on care workers postponed last November (Official Report, 1 November 2002, cols. WA 48-50)
	Subject to consultation, the programme for introducing checks will be as follows:
	Existing care home staff (care home staff who were in post just before 1 April 2002):
	The deadline for checks for this group will be brought forward from 31 October 2004 to 30 June 2004. In order to make sure the CRB check has been completed by the new deadline, applications will need to be submitted to the CRB between 1 October and 30 November 2003. In order to make best use of the CRB's increased capacity these checks will be carried out at the level of a standard disclosure.
	Domiciliary care agency and nurses agency staff:
	In order to ensure a smooth introduction of these checks, we propose making a distinction between new and existing domiciliary care agency and nurses agency staff. We are consulting on the definitions of new and existing staff in order to ensure that they are clear both to agencies and their customers. All domiciliary care and nurses agency staff will be required to obtain enhanced disclosures.
	From 1 October 2003, a CRB check will be required before a new agency domiciliary care worker or agency nurse can take up their placement.
	Existing domiciliary care agency staff will be asked to submit applications for checks to the CRB between 1 October and 30 November 2003. The CRB will complete these checks by 30 June 2004.
	Checks on existing nursing agency staff will commence in spring 2004 once those on existing domiciliary agency staff have been completed.
	The Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) list will be introduced as soon as possible.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has today issued a consultation paper on the necessary amendments to the Domiciliary Care Agencies Regulations 2002, Nurses Agencies Regulations 2002 and the Care Homes Regulations 2001.
	The lower volume of throughput, as a result of the slower introduction of checks on the key groups mentioned above and the deferment of basic disclosures, together with other factors have resulted in higher unit costs. The costs for 2002–03 have been met by the three key departments, namely the Home Office, Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills. The business plan develops a costing regime retaining free checks for volunteers and a new full-cost recovery plan with full effect from 2005.
	The Government made it clear when the current £12 fee was announced (Official Report, 2 April 2001, col. WA 92) that it was our intention that the bureau would be self-financing in the medium term. That remains our objective. However, in the short term, the costs of the CRB will continue to be met by a combination of fee receipts and contributions from the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. As we move towards full-cost recovery, it is necessary to increase the disclosure fees. From 1 July the fee for a standard disclosure will be £24 and that for an enhanced disclosure will be £29. Volunteers will continue to receive free disclosures. The necessary amendment to the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 has been laid before Parliament today.

G8 Summit: Government's Objectives

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	With particular reference to their commitment to NePAD (the New Partnership for Africa's Development), what will be their specific objectives at the G8 Summit in June 2003 with reference to each of the following:
	(a) the end of dumping by the industrialised world in the poor world;
	(b) the end of subsidies for goods exported by the industrialised world to the poor world; and
	(c) the elimination of tariff escalation by industrialised countries, including the European Union, on processed goods exported by the poor countries of the world.

Baroness Amos: In the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the draft modalities of the agriculture negotiations put forward by the chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, Stuart Harbinson, include specific proposals on:
	(1) disciplines for food aid and export credits as well as export subsidies specifically to address the issue of dumping;
	(2) the structure and targets for reductions in domestic support; and
	(3) a tariff reduction formula, which also aims at tackling tariff peaks and tariff escalation.
	Also, the European Commission's agriculture proposals to the WTO include provisions to:
	(1) reduce export subsidies by 45 per cent;
	(2) cut trade-distorting domestic support by 55 per cent; and
	(3) reduce tariffs by 36 per cent.
	The Commission's proposal specifically mentions the need to tackle tariff escalation.
	The UK objectives for the G8 summit included obtaining G8 commitment to making real progress in the WTO negotiations, particularly but not only to meet the concerns of African countries. These concerns include commitment to establishing fair rules for special and differential treatment (the "development box"), ensuring real reductions in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) agricultural subsidies and improving market access for developing country agricultural products. UK objectives more specific to Africa were to obtain G8 commitment to improving and harmonising preferential access schemes for African products, expanding the integrated framework for trade-related capacity building to low-income Africa countries, and obtaining agreement on a meaningful African trade initiative based on the French proposals.
	The G8 agreed a statement on co-operative action on trade, which emphasises the importance of continuing to strengthen the multilateral system, and delivering the Doha Development Agenda. G8 leaders reiterated their commitment to the objective of duty-free quota-free market access for products originating from least developed countries and to improve the effectiveness and ease of use of their respective trade preference programmes, but no commitments were made on addressing export subsidies.

G8 Summit: Government's Objectives

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	With particular reference to their commitment to NEPAD (the New Partnership for Africa's Development), what will be their specific objectives at the G8 Summit in June 2003 with reference to each of the following:
	(a) quota and tariff-free exports of agricultural produce and agriculture-related goods to the industrialised world including the European Union;
	(b) a "development box" within the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture;
	(c) the proposals by President Chirac for a moratorium on subsidies on all goods exported to Africa during current trade negotiations; and;
	(d) implementation of the ICO (International Coffee Organisation) Coffee Rescue Plan.

Baroness Amos: UK objectives for the G8 Summit included obtaining G8 commitment to making real progress on the African concerns at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations. These concerns include commitment to establishing fair rules for special and differential treatment (the "development box"), ensuring real reductions in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) agricultural subsidies and improving market access for developing country agricultural products. UK objectives more specific to Africa were to obtain G8 commitment to improving and harmonising preferential access schemes for African products, expanding the integrated framework for trade-related capacity building to low-income Africa countries, and obtaining agreement on a meaningful African trade initiative based on the French proposals. The UK had no specific objective for the G8 meeting for the International Coffee Organisation (ICO) rescue plan but endorses the ICO quality improvement programme.
	The G8 agreed a statement on co-operative action on trade, which emphasises the importance of continuing to strengthen the multilateral system, and delivering the Doha Development Agenda including through decisions at Cancun. Specific actions identified are: to achieve further substantial opening of trade in particular in areas of interest to developing countries; to strengthen WTO rules and disciplines; to reach a solution on access to medicines for developing countries; to help with capacity building for trade; and to improve preferences for poor countries. There was limited progress on an African trade initiative following US objections to the proposed export subsidy moratorium proposed. Two of the original French proposals were referred to in the implementation report by Africa personal representatives to leaders on the G8 African Action Plan, in which G8 leaders reiterated commitment to the objective of duty-free quota-free market access for products originating from least developed countries and to improve the effectiveness and ease of use of their respective trade preference programmes. They welcomed the efforts underway by the World Bank Group to examine the potential for effective market-based mechanisms to help to mitigate weather and commodity shocks.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the latest position as regards the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.

Lord Rooker: The Leader of the House of Commons announced today at Business Questions our intention to recommit the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to Standing Committee.
	We have taken this decision to enable us to bring forward provisions which will end the Crown's immunity from planning control, subject to certain safeguards. Given the substantive nature of the proposed amendments, I think it is important that the House of Commons is given the opportunity to debate these new provisions fully before the Bill resumes its remaining stages.
	We will also be seeking to introduce further provisions which will help to implement the sustainable communities agenda.
	Clearly this will mean that the Bill will not be able to complete its remaining stages in this Session. Motions have therefore also been tabled today to allow the Bill to be carried over into the next parliamentary session. We will be seeking to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book as soon as possible in the next Session to lessen the impact of this slight delay.
	We propose that the provisions relating to Crown development extend beyond England and Wales, which would involve the Scottish Executive pursuing a Sewel Motion in the Scottish Parliament. We are, of course, discussing this with the Scottish Executive, which has been kept informed of our proposals.
	The intention to carry over the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill into the next Session does not signify any lessening in our commitment to reforming the planning system.
	Copies of a short progress report covering the large number of workstreams being taken forward as part of this commitment are available in the Libraries of the House. The note will also be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website www.odpm.gov.uk.

Fire Services Bill: ECHR Compatibility

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the provisions of the Fire Services Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Rooker: In my view the provisions of the Fire Services Bill are compatible with the convention rights.

Office of the e-Envoy: Charges to Government Departments

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the projected costs to government departments of the Office of the e-Envoy charges for improvements to e-government services when the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF) comes to an end in September; and
	In respect of the intention of the Office of the e-Envoy to charge government departments for its services, whether they can explain the reported statement from the OeE that "the costs should be [invoiced to] where the savings are made".

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Knowledge Network project within the Office of the e-Envoy was set up with funding from the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF) to develop the infrastructure and initial applications and business systems to support inter-departmental working. The CMF funding for the project has now expired.
	The Knowledge Network is now a successful ongoing service to government departments, with 32 departments and agencies using the infrastructure. As the main development stage is complete, it is in accordance with general government policy that the costs should be met by those benefiting from the service, hence the intention to introduce charges on user departments. The Office of the e-Envoy (OeE) is discussing details with users at the moment but charges are not expected to exceed £150,000 per year even for the major departmental users.
	The OeE is also responsible for delivering two other major infrastructure developments, the UKOnline portal and the Government Gateway. Both projects are still receiving funding from the CMF. No decisions have yet been taken about moving these services on to a charging basis.

e-Government Interoperability Framework

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the recent publication of its 5th version, when they anticipate that the e-Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF) will be updated to allow for wider deployment of wireless and mobile computing technology across government, particularly in respect of broadband delivery to rural areas and the regions.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The e-GIF is regularly reviewed every six months, and at each review all content is updated as necessary. The next review is due in October 2003 when the current advice on the use of wireless and mobile technologies will be revised if the current security concerns about the use of those technologies have been resolved.

Employer Task Force on Pensions

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will announce the membership, terms of reference and timetable for the Employer Task Force on Pensions.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Membership and terms of reference for the task force on pensions are set out below. We expect the task force to report in around 18 months.
	
		Employer Task Force on Pensions: Members Appointed by Andrew Smith on 4 June 2003
		
			 Company/Organisation Member 
			 J Sainsburys plc Sir Peter Davis 
			  Group Chief Executive Task Force Chairman 
			 BP plc Dr David Allen 
			  Group Managing Director 
			  Task Force Vice Chairman 
			 Acme Whistles Simon Topman 
			  Managing Director 
			 Aircraft Research Group Brian Timmins 
			  Group Chief Executive 
			 Amicus Lucy Anderson 
			  Deputy General Secretary 
			 Co-operative Group Mervyn K Pedelty 
			  Chief Executive 
			 Corporation of London Peter Derrick 
			  Finance Chamberlain 
			 Emap Ralph Turner 
			  Group Benefits Manager 
			 ICI Philip Gillett 
			  Tax Controller 
			 Marks & Spencer Graham Oakley 
			  Company Secretary 
			 Scottish Catering Enterprises Susan Karim 
			  Managing Director 
			 Scottish Power David Nish 
			  Finance Director 
			 USDAW Sir Bill Connor 
			  General Secretary 
			 Whitbread Geoff Mellor 
			  Pensions Director 
			 Wimpey Anna Edgeworth 
			  Group HR Director 
		
	
	Terms of Reference
	Role
	Employer-led body with a mission to increase and extend occupational and private pension provision.
	Aim
	to work in partnership with government and individuals to help employees achieve security and independence in retirement by identifying and promoting employer-led solutions which enable and encourage employees to save more and for longer;
	And to provide the Secretary of State with advice on the role of the employer in the pensions partnership.
	Key Responsibilities
	To develop and promote employers' role in pension provision and encourage employees to save, with particular emphasis on:
	increasing employees' access to high quality pension schemes;
	improving advice available to enable employees to make informed choices;
	encouraging employees to take up pension provision;
	identifying the needs of specific sectors to develop targeted pensions solutions.
	To act as a catalyst in the development and promulgation of best practice; and
	To advise the Secretary of State on the role of the employer in the pensions partnership.

Oxford and Cambridge Universities: Independent and State School Entries

Lord Skidelsky: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will give the figures for the proportion of students entering Oxford and Cambridge universities from independent and state schools respectively every year since 1960.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The latest available information is shown in the table below.
	Comparable data for earlier years are not held centrally.
	
		Acceptances to Oxford and Cambridge Universities by previous educational establishment
		
			   of which, percentage from  
			  Total Acceptances(1) Maintained schools and colleges Independent schools(2) Other(3) Total 
			 Oxford  
			 1970 2,417 43 55 2 100 
			 1971 2,382 41 55 4 100 
			 1972 2,497 42 55 3 100 
			 1973 2,500 42 53 4 100 
			 1974 2,537 41 53 6 100 
			 1975 2,719 45 52 4 100 
			 1976 2,744 45 52 3 100 
			 1977 2,817 47 50 3 100 
			 1978 2,850 47 50 3 100 
			 1979 2,788 47 50 3 100 
			 1980 2,814 49 48 3 100 
			 1981 2,836 50 47 3 100 
			 1982 2,840 49 47 4 100 
			 1983 2,686 50 47 3 100 
			 1984 2,853 49 48 4 100 
			 1985 3,120 43 54 3 100 
			 1986 2,940 47 45 8 100 
			 1987 3,070 46 46 8 100 
			 1988 3,226 45 48 8 100 
			 1989 3,164 46 46 8 100 
			 1990 3,110 45 48 7 100 
			 1991 3,189 42 48 10 100 
			 1992 3,184 43 49 9 100 
			 1993 3,157 44 47 10 100 
			 1994 3,276 43 46 11 100 
			 1995 2,848 49 51 n.a. 100 
			 1996 2,948 48 52 n.a. 100 
			 1997 2,942 48 52 n.a. 100 
			 1998 3,044 50 50 n.a. 100 
			 1999 2,964 51 49 n.a. 100 
			 2000 2,928 53 47 n.a. 100 
			 2001 2,980 55 45 n.a. 100 
			 2002 3,088 55 45 n.a. 100 
			  
			 Cambridge  
			 1970 2,715 40 57 3 100 
			 1971 2,868 40 53 7 100 
			 1972 2,907 41 52 7 100 
			 1973 2,887 44 49 7 100 
			 1974 2,878 43 50 7 100 
			 1975 2,948 44 49 7 100 
			 1976 3,032 42 52 6 100 
			 1977 3,004 41 52 7 100 
			 1978 3,224 46 46 8 100 
			 1979 3,066 43 47 10 100 
			 1980 3,300 44 45 10 100 
			 1981 2,905 42 49 9 100 
			 1982 2,792 43 48 9 100 
			 1983 2,899 44 46 10 100 
			 1984 2,985 39 49 12 100 
			 1985 3,098 39 50 10 100 
			 1986 3,129 35 50 16 100 
			 1987 3,020 41 47 13 100 
			 1988 2,933 43 45 12 100 
			 1989 3,013 47 43 11 100 
			 1990 3,117 44 44 11 100 
			 1991 3,015 48 47 5 100 
			 1992 3,052 46 44 10 100 
			 1993 3,068 45 45 9 100 
			 1994 3,095 46 46 9 100 
			 1995 2,989 53 47 n.a. 100 
			 1996 2,767 55 45 n.a. 100 
			 1997 3,001 54 46 n.a. 100 
			 1998 2,982 53 47 n.a. 100 
			 1999 2,985 55 45 n.a. 100 
			 2000 2,999 55 45 n.a. 100 
			 2001 3,088 56 44 n.a. 100 
			 2002 3,053 57 43 n.a. 100 
		
	
	Source:
	UCAS from 1995 to 2002 and Oxford Gazette and the Cambridge Reporter from 1970 to 1994.
	Percentages may not sum to totals because of rounding. N.a. = not applicable.
	(1) Figures for 1994 and earlier years include overseas students who cannot be separately identified. Figures since 1995 cover UK domiciled students only.
	(2) Includes direct grant schools in years prior to 1982.
	(3) Includes overseas students in the years up to 1994; and, (for Cambridge in years prior to 1987, and Oxford in years prior to 1978), students from Scotland and Northern Ireland whose school type was not specified.

Slug Pellets

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 10 March (WA 152), what evidence they have that the use of slug pellets is increasing in United Kingdom gardens.

Lord Whitty: Figures for slug pellet use in gardens are not collated.

Rural Delivery Review

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the guiding principles of Lord Haskins's Rural Delivery Review.

Lord Whitty: Lord Haskins's Rural Delivery Review will help improve the way rural policies are delivered and make a real difference to local people.
	The seven guiding principles of the review—the first outcome of Lord Haskins's work—were published today. They are:
	Better accountability: policy development should be managed separately from policy delivery, whilst ensuring that proper communication exists at all stages between the two functions. Accountability for success or failure cannot be determined if there is confusion between the two.
	Readiness for policy change: the Government must prepare for the delivery of a major new agri-environmental agenda in the coming years.
	Devolution: delivery of economic and social policy must be devolved in accordance with the principles of public service reform.
	Customer focus: the services available to rural businesses and rural communities, and visitors to the countryside, need to be more accessible and transparent.
	Simplicity: the complex range of agencies currently engaged in delivering the Government's rural policies should be simplified.
	Co-ordination: the environmental, social and economic elements of rural delivery should be better co-ordinated at a regional level.
	Value for money: the taxpayer must get better value for money as a result of changes to the current arrangements.
	Ministers are very grateful for all the work Lord Haskins has done so far, meeting hundreds of individuals and organisations throughout England, as well as visiting Scotland, Wales, France, Germany and Belgium. The principles he has developed are a very useful first indication of his thinking and are consistent with existing work across government bringing services closer to local people, for example through devolution and decentralisation.
	Ministers want to see real improvements in service delivery to rural people and we expect the Rural Delivery Review to build on these principles to produce imaginative and effective proposals. We now look forward to receiving Lord Haskins's final conclusions in the autumn.